291–300 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's good for everyone that the police can't skirt around the rules of discovery and present 'last minute evidence' that denies peoples' right to a free trial, yes.
The context here is civil cases (I think the GP means "respondent" rather than "defendant"?)
Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…
For those who don't recognize the name, this is the same judge that learned some Java for the Oracle v. Google case (and has an undergrad degree in mathematics). Every time I read his name I know it's going to be a fun ride and the lawyers will not be able to get away with anywhere near as much shenanigans as they usually do. Although his ruling regarding API copyright in the Google case was overturned, he has a real…
A lot of people seem confused by the idea that a party can request personal documents someone else has. Just like in criminal land, civil land has subpoenas. Parties can issue subpoenas for most things to other parties. In federal court, civil subpoenas are covered by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 45. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 Outside of the exceptions listed, yes, you would be required t…
This judge is mighty impressive, and since it's so much in fashion these days to be suspicious of institutions, I want to highlight this passage: THE COURT: If you all keep insisting on redacting so much information, like -- and you're the guilty one on that, Mr. Verhoeven -- then arbitration looks better and better. Because I'm not going to put up with it. If we're going to be in a public proceeding, 99 percent of w…
So from what I understand, Google is litigating this in public, but their lawyers, such as Mr. Verhoeven, are redacting everything on their side they don't want public. This makes it sound like Google is doing this in public mainly to hurt Uber as much as possible in the court of public opinion. Am I wrong in interpreting Google's actions this way? Sounds like this and many other conflicts Google had with Mr. Lewando…
If you keep reading, they touch on that several times. It sounds like Uber's lawyers complained to the judge and Google complained "Hey, you didn't ask us first" and then the judge yelled at Uber.
It's complicated by the fact that there are multiple suits going on, both the public lawsuit and some sort of arbitration, and Google has different lawyers representing them for the others.
In the end of the transcript of the session the quote is from, Google was saying they were only trying to redact sensitive PII in the employment agreement (the document that they were arguing about) like name, address, salary, etc. and everyone was OK with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…
> What if Levandowski has the files on his home > computer or something but they never touched Uber's > system? One of the things that surprised me about Google's employee agreement was that by signing it, the employee gives permission to Google to search any and all digital devices associated with the employee whether or not they are owned by Google. When I asked an employment lawyer about it he suggested it was fai…
How does this work???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…
> What if Levandowski has the files on his home > computer or something but they never touched Uber's > system? One of the things that surprised me about Google's employee agreement was that by signing it, the employee gives permission to Google to search any and all digital devices associated with the employee whether or not they are owned by Google. When I asked an employment lawyer about it he suggested it was fai…
In Norway, employer even have only limited rights to access things like your employer owned devices if they are personal to you, on the basis that it would be an invasion of privacy unless a lot of steps have been taken to prevent you from accessing or storing personal information on it.
Though in a case like this where they have evidence that implies wrongdoing, that would be sufficient to search equipment the employer owns or have financed. The barrier for searching private equipment is massively higher, though, and would normally require going to court.
Personally I'd never consider working for anyone that demanded a clause like what you outlined. I understand their liability concerns, but the at the same time if they won't trust me, then I can't trust them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those who don't recognize the name, this is the same judge that learned some Java for the Oracle v. Google case (and has an undergrad degree in mathematics). Every time I read his name I know it's going to be a fun ride and the lawyers will not be able to get away with anywhere near as much shenanigans as they usually do. Although his ruling regarding API copyright in the Google case was overturned, he has a real…
In the USA do judges get assigned to cases because of their prior demonstrated ability to grasp a particular industry - or is this just a coincidence?
So judges can be assigned cases they are interested in or suited for through that system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What if Levandowski has the files on his home > computer or something but they never touched Uber's > system? One of the things that surprised me about Google's employee agreement was that by signing it, the employee gives permission to Google to search any and all digital devices associated with the employee whether or not they are owned by Google. When I asked an employment lawyer about it he suggested it was fai…
How are they going to do this? Can they enter his house and then search his computer and disks? Take anything and ask for his password to decrypt them? If they simply ask him, and he wouldn't want them to find these files, he could delete them or put them on an encrypted stick that they don't know about. How does this work???
Though not all Google employees sign this, just the Project X experimental ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really the issue. The issue is whether the judge is going to impute Levandowski's failure to cooperate to Uber. From the transcript: MR. GONZÁLEZ (Uber's lawyer): So, Your Honor, first of all, we have searched and we are in the process of searching all of our computers for the sorts of information that you referred to. And if we find those documents, we intend to produce those. In addition, Your Honor, we…
Is there any issue with judges reading newspaper articles about cases they're in? I know that jury members aren't supposed to, are judges fine?
Judges are supposed to be people who can be trusted to be objective. They are chosen (or, before they were elected, and politics became divisive) for their trustworthiness and objective scholarship. Historically they were well educated, of a higher class, perceived to be of a higher moral character.
The point is judges are expected to be mostly objective, and use external information responsibly.